Like it or not (I don't find it unattractive) it is very busy and very square which seems to be the current trend.

I think its cool that the hood vent is "functional" (wondering what function it serves as its obviously not an effective scoop for intake or cooling). I guess at idol some heat would escape.

Looks like a Toyota Tundra hood.

Looks like a Toyota Tundra hood.

Vented hood is for the new Duramax! And although it might not get the HP like the new Ford diesel or the torque of the Cummins it most likely will out perform both of them in a shootout! Just my 2 cents....

Am trying to decide if I like this design or not.

Seems a little "busy" and "chunky".
On the other hand, it does look "solid" and "substantial".

I don't think it's a design mistake, just not a home run, IMHO..

===============

In the real world GM is third and fourth place in HD trucks. Nobody in their right mind is buying a Denali. Still looks ugly as hec with a itty bitty change to the hood.

Back to the shootout, GM usually loses the gas 3/4 ton HD shootouts which I care more about. I prefer gas trucks. Ford won the emperical scoring in the last 3/4 ton. The old Ford fell short on ride and interior. So, yes, bring on the shootout with the new Ford with all new frame, suspension and interior!

New dmax and new hood will push this truck's msrp over 75k!!!

Too expensive for some plastic chrome package.

The trend seems to be very busy front ends, and it seems like the Ram and Tundra are the two trucks that aren't overly busy.

And I agree that the hoods looks like a Tundra hood, but the "scoop" opening isn't as large as the Tundas. I still can't get over those square fenders which make the tires look like 29-30" tall tires. It looks like a truck that had a level/lift kit installed and kept factory tires.

2017 FORD SUPER DUTY
--Bigger. Stronger. Better--

The last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it. It was Johnny doe's girlfriend Tuna.

Love my 15 Denali Duramax! And yes I'm in my right mind Dave Z... (but thanks for the concern!) Personally I think the new hood looks great, can't wait to see what's lurking underneath it!

@DAVE Z Nobody in their right mind is buying a Denali. (That statement would be wrong.)

GMC said 48 percent of Sierra heavy-duty pickups sold to retail customers in May were with the Denali trim.

In the words of a Jew...... OY VEY!!!

The scoop is for the twin turbo V6 coming out cuz they want to finally have a fast truck with good MPG. LMBO!!!!!!!!!

Every cosmetic change they have made to the new Silverado/Sierras (both 1500 and 2500) since they debuted in 2014 has been a step in the wrong direction.

Nice hood, but it's a letdown that the HD didn't get the "Megatron robot-eye" headlamps the 1500s got for '16.

The new hood scoop is for after the Duramax crushes the old used beer can Ford. Suck that Ford up and sh%$ it out the tail pipe HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh and GM is has the most dependable HD truck two years and a row.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/05/chevrolet-silverado-hd-wins-segment-jd-power-2016-vehicle-dependability-study/

Plus crushed Furd in the SUV segment to boot!

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/05/gms-full-size-suvs-sweep-full-size-suv-segment-in-2016-j-d-power-vehicle-dependability-study/

Posted by: johnny doe | Jun 1, 2016 11:39:09 AM

Hahahahaha hahaha you moron, you cannot read. FORD CRUSHES GM IN POWERTRAIN DURABILITY AND BODY DURABILITY plus INTERIOR DURABILITY.

I actually like it, kinda looks to copy the new Ford HD's, maybe thats why.....

GMC is going backwards in reference to their appearance; they're going back to that fake big-rig look and exaggerating it to the ridiculous. I *almost* liked the previous grill as an approximate throwback to the 90s. Now? It's a brick wall in the face of the wind. Fuel economy will go backwards as a result.

But will they move the DEF tank?

Dave Z - in Canada Sierra outsells Silverado.

I'm not a fan of the Sierra's snout. A functional hood scoop is what I like to see. I hate scoops that are just for show.

redbloodedxy - - -

2017 FORD SUPER DUTY
--- Bigger. Stronger. Better. Faster. Tougher. Cheaper. Prettier... ---

-----------------

Oooops. Was on a roll there for a while. But I'm sure this GM truck is fully capable...

=================

In the South, it's going to be a great bug catcher!

@LMAO-- Sources?

Great addition for the most dependable HD pickup available for the second year in a row. This functional hood will breathe air into the new 900 plus torque Duramax and hopefully a new gas engine also. Ford and Ram could not beat the old Duramax with their stretched power numbers and it looks like they will fall even farther back. Funny how the old 6.0 gas engine and so called outdated Duramax still beats everything Ford and Ram can offer. Start cutting your hoods all you Ford and Ram boys, you are second to the party once again.

@LMAO-- Sources?

Posted by: mark49 | Jun 1, 2016 2:56:00 PM

the moron does source, JD power.

doe's,

@LMAO-- Sources?

Posted by: mark49 | Jun 1, 2016 2:56:00 PM

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/study/2016-Vehicle-Dependability-Study-%28VDS%29-by-Category/843ENG/Large-Heavy-Duty-Pickup/1123

Big front grilles. Flimsy front bumpers. These two things keep at work pickup truck designers. But anybody can do that!

The scoop is for the twin turbo V6 coming out cuz they want to finally have a fast truck with good MPG. LMBO!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: I am Ram therefore I am. | Jun 1, 2016 12:08:57 PM

You wished Ford clown pretending to be a Ram fan! The real world testing says they already have the faster truck with better MPG's with a v8.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-towing-mileage-test.html

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-acceleration.html

You wished Ford clown pretending to be a Ram fan! The real world testing says they already have the faster truck with better MPG's with a v8.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-towing-mileage-test.html

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2016/01/texas-truck-showdown-2016-acceleration.html

Posted by: johnny doe | Jun 1, 2016 5:18:04 PM

PSSST, hey, hey, HEY moron Doe! See below. The F150 started off in 2nd gear. Not bad for 55 LESS HP and 40 LBFT of torque with a 6 speed transmission vs 8 speed.

Starting in 2nd gear via manual mode proved the smoothest way to harness the 3.5-liter EcoBoost's 420 pounds-feet of torque available at 2,500 rpm. Only then were we rewarded with a zero-to-60 time of 6.36 seconds and a quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds at 97.4 mph.

2017 FORD SUPER DOOTY
--Bigger. Stronger. Better—
Posted by: redbloodedxy | Jun 1, 2016 11:14:28 AM

On the day after memorial day... lest we forget how well it burns either!

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/08/spied-camouflaged-2016-super-duty-catches-fire.html

Don’t you love this article, the new SuperDooty was “spied” ...lol...really hard to miss the inferno burning on the side of the road...lol

@LMAO, Thanks. I find it odd that the Chevy and GMC didn't have identical marks for some of the categories. Diesels aside, the 6.0 GM has got to be the toughest motor out there, imho.

@LMAO, Thanks. I find it odd that the Chevy and GMC didn't have identical marks for some of the categories. Diesels aside, the 6.0 GM has got to be the toughest motor out there, imho.

Posted by: mark49 | Jun 1, 2016 8:27:57 PM

You would think they would have. The 6.0L is a good engine for sure.

@LMAO-- Sources?

Posted by: mark49 | Jun 1, 2016 2:56:00 PM

http://www.jdpower.com/cars/study/2016-Vehicle-Dependability-Study-%28VDS%29-by-Category/843ENG/Large-Heavy-Duty-Pickup/1123

Posted by: LMAO | Jun 1, 2016 4:32:29 PM..........................All but two Ford's studied received 2 out of five stars for overall dependability. Not much to brag about.

Posted by: LMAO | Jun 1, 2016 4:32:29 PM..........................All but two Ford's studied received 2 out of five stars for overall dependability. Not much to brag about.

Posted by: heyyouguys | Jun 1, 2016 8:41:59 PM

I don't know about you but I prefer a dependable powertrain and solid body.

Starting in 2nd gear via manual mode proved the smoothest way to harness the 3.5-liter EcoBoost's 420 pounds-feet of torque available at 2,500 rpm. Only then were we rewarded with a zero-to-60 time of 6.36 seconds and a quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds at 97.4 mph.

Posted by: LMAO | Jun 1, 2016 6:32:27 PM

Hahaha! It still got tromp on by the 6.2 .

Also from the link you posted by LAMO. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. HAHA!

The Sierra's zero-to-60-mph time of 5.86 seconds and quarter-mile time of 14.4 at 96.9 mph was so fast that the truck nosed over before the quarter-mile ended as the Sierra hit its self-imposed 98 mph speed limiter 100 feet before the finish line. While the Sierra was already the fastest, there's more in it as well.

Gm 6.2 is fast.... Just don't take it much above sea level cause it can't compete with a 2.7 v6 f150
http://www.tfltruck.com/tfltruck-hall-of-solo-0-60-mph/

Posted by: LMAO | Jun 1, 2016 4:32:29 PM..........................All but two Ford's studied received 2 out of five stars for overall dependability. Not much to brag about.

Posted by: heyyouguys | Jun 1, 2016 8:41:59 PM

I don't know about you but I prefer a dependable powertrain and solid body.
Restudy those same trucks when there more that 3YO, the over all dependability is going to be even lower.ie EcoBoost...read owners comments...http://www.torquenews.com/106/feds-drop-ford-f150-ecoboost-investigation

I don't know about you but I prefer a dependable powertrain and solid body.
Restudy those same trucks when there more that 3YO, the over all dependability is going to be even lower.ie EcoBoost...read owners comments...http://www.torquenews.com/106/feds-drop-ford-f150-ecoboost-investigation

Posted by: heyyouguys | Jun 2, 2016 12:05:54 AM

I would strongly suggest that you actually read the report. It was based off of 3 year vehicles. I don't give that study any credit because it has a very small sample base but it is funny to see you guys wack off to it.

Hahaha! It still got tromp on by the 6.2 .

Also from the link you posted by LAMO. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. HAHA!

The Sierra's zero-to-60-mph time of 5.86 seconds and quarter-mile time of 14.4 at 96.9 mph was so fast that the truck nosed over before the quarter-mile ended as the Sierra hit its self-imposed 98 mph speed limiter 100 feet before the finish line. While the Sierra was already the fastest, there's more in it as well.

Posted by: GMSRGREAT | Jun 1, 2016 8:54:30 PM

Barely when Ford started off in 2nd gear. Just think of that huge ratio spread between Ford and GM and the 6.2L just eeked out a win. That would be embarrassing.

Oh and incase you forgot, 55 less HP and 40 LBFT less torque and the GM just barely beat the 3.5 V6.

I am NOT wading into my dad can beat up your dad debate. Just making a few observations! The new Corvette Z06 (manual) achieves its best 0-60 times by launching in 2nd gear. A forced induction engine in general will benefit less from more transmission gears than a n/a engine due to a flatter torque curve. I'm not saying it wouldn't help some- just not as much. Second thing, GM's torque management software is very intrusive. I don't know about Ford's. Third, to the poster who commented about TFL's 0-60 test of the 2.7 (at high altitude)- I do believe Ford sent a ringer for that test. Other testing (towing) vs a 5.3 showed the 2.7 to be faster until the temperature went down. Then the 5.3 was a little better. No stock 5.3 anywhere ever would run with a 6.2. All that said, Ford has done a great job of making the power of the 3.5 usable and available in all situations.

Its cute that GM needs a 6.2 V8 to hang with/in some ways edge Fords 3.5 V6... That fact alone should be embarrassing for GM. What takes it a step farther and largely makes the 6.2 vs 3.5 argument pretty pointless is that only about 10% of GMC/Chevy 1/2 ton Owners select/get the "vaunted" 6.2 while 46+% of F150 Owners get the 3.5 EB. And don't forget the F150 also outsells the Chevy or GMC all day long and often both together. You literally cant swing a dead cat without hitting a 3.5 EB and you can go days without seeing a 1500 with the 6.2. The 6.2 in a half ton is simply a marketing stunt.

If you NEED such a large engine in your truck you should have ponied up for 3/4 ton. A measly 10% are just boys with their toy and the money to waste on it.

Corvette Z06 quarter mile times. Oops.

Mark49, actually this is the first time I heard that GM used torque managament. I know Ford has been using it for a very long time. At least since the 3V engine line. I'm sure the vettes have better times with a 2nd gear launch on street tires. Throw on some slicks and they could used 1st gear and really get some killer times. You need traction for the power.

@Clint, I agree with Ford's approach allowing ANY trim level to have the 3.5 option. I hate that GM makes you spend 50,000+ if you want a 6.2. Most people simple cannot justify a loaded truck with the big motor- it's not that they don't want it.

PSSST, hey, hey, HEY moron Doe! See below. The F150 started off in 2nd gear. Not bad for 55 LESS HP and 40 LBFT of torque with a 6 speed transmission vs 8 speed.

Starting in 2nd gear via manual mode proved the smoothest way to harness the 3.5-liter EcoBoost's 420 pounds-feet of torque available at 2,500 rpm. Only then were we rewarded with a zero-to-60 time of 6.36 seconds and a quarter-mile in 14.8 seconds at 97.4 mph.

Posted by: LMAO | Jun 1, 2016 6:32:27 PM

Not my fault Ford can't build a chassis to handle putting only 420 TQ to the ground.

Not my fault Ford can't build a chassis to handle putting only 420 TQ to the ground.

Posted by: johnny doe | Jun 2, 2016 10:11:48 AM

Actually it was the tires. Easy fix. But you can excuse away. That is the GM way.